Veerpal v. State of Uttarakhand

Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, holding brief of Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. As per the prosecution story on 18.11.2024, the police team saw a car parked on the way to village Girdharpuri leading to Pantpura at the tri-junction (three- way-intersection) of the road crossing ahead; they saw a car registration bearing no. U.P. 25 EB 9675, wherein there was a person opening the car and boot of the said car and taking out some material and was handing over to the persons standing near the car. As soon as that person saw the police approaching the car, he tried to escape through the fields of wheat and sugarcane; this made the police team apprehensive of his action and after surrounding that person, they held him on the spot; when the boot of the above said car was opened 2 then it was found that he was carrying contraband schedule drugs named viz. Bupreorphine 2 ml Injection and Avil Pheniramine Maleate IP 800 Injection 10 ml from a car. On asking the applicant about keeping a licence for holding the aforesaid drugs in the car, he failed to produce any such licence.

4. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that there is gross error in the procedure of arrest and recovery of the accused along with the contraband; recovery has been planted upon the applicant; and he was falsely booked under this Act.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter and the recovery shown thereafter from his possession is all false and the contraband whatever, that has been shown by the police, are planted.

6. It is stated on behalf of the applicant the recovery so alleged by the police i.e. the contraband scheduled drugs named viz. Bupreorphine 2 ml Injection and Avil Pheniramine Maleate IP 800 Injection 10 ml from the car which is registered in the name of one person known as – Pramod Kumar, but the owner of the car has neither been apprehended nor made accused in the present matter. It is further stated that the story of the prosecution is that two persons ran away from the spot, one of them is the owner of the car, but police has falsely implicated the applicant instead of the person who ran away.

7. It is contended that the place of recovery of search and seizure is a highly populated area, still there is no independent witness in the present matter which makes the entire prosecution story doubtful. Hence, the compliance under Section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. has not been followed. 3

8. Then it was stated that the mandatory compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has also not been done as the search was not conducted in presence of any gazetted officer so called by the police. Further, other Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have also not been complied with in the present matter.

9. It is contended that on behalf of the applicant that the inventory report is highly improbable as an FIR under the Act can only be lodged after search, seizure and arrest is made out. Lastly, it was contended that at present there is no F.S.L. report to suggest whether the contraband seized from the applicant viz. Bupreorphine Injection and Diazepam Injection are the scheduled drugs.

10. It is further argued that that the applicant is languishing in jail for so long and he is of a tender age and it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. The bail application has been strongly opposed on behalf of the State. At the outset it was contended that huge quantity of contraband scheduled drugs viz. Bupreorphine 2 ml Injection and Avil Pheniramine Maleate IP 800 Injection 10 ml have been recovered from the possession of the applicant which was apprehended while he was trying to sell the contraband drugs as above; and there is no reason or ground whatsoever, that contraband in such high quantity had been falsely planted thereby implicate the applicant in the present matter.

12. During the search, the searched team duly followed all the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, and due to the sudden recovery, compliance of the Section 50 could not be done. 4

13. That the inventory report was prepared on the spot in which the recovery procedure has been followed as per the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and the seizure has also been recorded; and the contraband so recovered has been recorded as commercial quantity in the inventory report. It is also contended that before spotting of car which was used in the present matter, the accused was seen by the police search team handing over the contraband to the other persons standing nearby who have reportedly run away from the spot of recovery; these facts indicate that the applicant has been indulgent in distribution of the seized contraband i.e. scheduled drugs under the N.D.P.S. Act,

14. It is argued that the applicant is a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh and he seeks enlargment on bail. There is a direct involvement of the applicant and looking to the seriousness of offence, the bail application was strongly opposed.

15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record at the outset, I find that it is a fit case for bail. Firstly, because there is no F.S.L. report before this Court to indicate that the recovered contraband is exactly listed in the inventory report; and secondly, this is very strange that this fact is not mentioned in the inventory report. How a procedure i.e. yet to be followed is mentioned in all the matters relating to the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as per the N.D.P.S. Act. FIR is generally lodged after arrest has been made of the person from whose possession a contraband listed as per the N.D.P.S. Act, has been seized and an arrest memo has been made and complied with, only thereafter and FIR may be lodged. 5

16. As per inventory report there is a mention of photography and videography at the time of seizure and contraband were seized and the arrest was made.

17. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, and without going into the merits of the case and also without going into the details which may affect the merits of the trial, I find it is a fit case for grant of bail.

18. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Veerpal be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.)

12.03.2025 Anand